Capitalism = Wealthy White Hetrosexual Christian Males?

[Hexen]

Is Capitalism really a system designed & built for wealthy white heterosexual christian males or is it more complex? Or maybe I got it right the first time?

Well this might be best evidence I found that supports my original point:

http://100percentmen.tumblr.com/

[homegrown terror]

it's more complex than that, but if i had to sum up, in the simplest terms, the demographic that capitalism is designed to serve, that'd be about the wording i'd use.

[Bostana]

I wouldn't even say christian really. Of course bourgeois men have adopted Christianity to please the masses. Religion is used by bourgeois to make it seem their actions are justified because "They'll get it better in the afterlife."

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I highly, highly recommend Butch Lee's Night Vision: Illuminating War & Class on the Neo-Colonial Terrain. What she suggests, to summarize all too simplistically, is that the capitalist class itself is increasingly diverse, but capitalism itself is still fundamentally white and male supremacist. Though the book predates Obama or the "5/10 Canadian Premeirs are women!" hype, they're both excellent examples - these developments parallel the increasingly criminalization of women's reproductive autonomy, and the continued mass imprisonment of black men. 'Nuf said.

[Akshay!]

I'd just say wealthy.

Sure, a lot of the wealthy happen to be white, and heterosexual, and christian, but I think that's just accidental. I mean, in a lot of the African countries the elite is black. The king of Saudi Arabia is Muslim. The head of the Congress Party in India is female. And all of these people also benefit from the system. If you imagine an alternate history in which black female homosexual buddhists happen to have the most wealth then they would also want to maintain their power and privilege.

[homegrown terror]

If you imagine an alternate history in which black female homosexual buddhists happen to have the most wealth then they would also want to maintain their power and privilege.

i think you just summed up the average conservative's "nightmare scenario" that they use to justify their bigotry.

[Hexen]

I'd just say wealthy.

Sure, a lot of the wealthy happen to be white, and heterosexual, and christian, but I think that's just accidental. I mean, in a lot of the African countries the elite is black. The king of Saudi Arabia is Muslim. The head of the Congress Party in India is female. And all of these people also benefit from the system. If you imagine an alternate history in which black female homosexual buddhists happen to have the most wealth then they would also want to maintain their power and privilege.


I guess we can say that Capitalism in the west (especially the U.S.) is predominately Wealthy White Heterosexual Christian Males.

[MarxArchist]

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeg45fdgf/2013s-notable-newcomers/

[Leftsolidarity]

I'd just say wealthy.

Sure, a lot of the wealthy happen to be white, and heterosexual, and christian, but I think that's just accidental. I mean, in a lot of the African countries the elite is black. The king of Saudi Arabia is Muslim. The head of the Congress Party in India is female. And all of these people also benefit from the system. If you imagine an alternate history in which black female homosexual buddhists happen to have the most wealth then they would also want to maintain their power and privilege.

Not in the least. Yes, as an ideology capitalism doesn't care about race/gender/attraction/religion but in the real world capitalism is to benefit the top few which are white straight males for the most part. I don't see how you think it could be accidental with the history of slavery, colonialism, denial of equal bourgois rights (both past and present), assassinations and all the sabotage against the movements of oppressed people, etc.

None of this was an accident. It was on purpose to keep the white/straight/male capitalist class in power.

[Comrade Samuel]

If you imagine an alternate history in which black female homosexual buddhists happen to have the most wealth then they would also want to maintain their power and privilege.

This.

Being 3/5 of the things listed by the OP I get funny looks when admitting my communist sympathies and proclaiming that the western world is almost exclusively run by these people. Obviously there are bourgeoise and prolateriate in every nation, of every ethnicity, of every religion, of both sexes and every sexual orientation but as far as the western world goes I definitely see your point.

[homegrown terror]

Not in the least. Yes, as an ideology capitalism doesn't care about race/gender/attraction/religion but in the real world capitalism is to benefit the top few which are white straight males for the most part. I don't see how you think it could be accidental with the history of slavery, colonialism, denial of equal bourgois rights (both past and present), assassinations and all the sabotage against the movements of oppressed people, etc.

None of this was an accident. It was on purpose to keep the white/straight/male capitalist class in power.

i think he was referring to the fact that europe became the dominant economic power in history as an accident of events, basically that should certain occurances happened differently it could conceivably be a different regional group that rose to power. for instance, had the bubonic plague persisted longer than it did, europe might have been devastated past the point of recovery, allowing for asia to take the helm and dominate political and economic history; or had rome died out before the imperial stage, conceivably the middle east might have been the center of consolidated power for the mediterranean, and effected an arab-dominated globe.

[homegrown terror]

This.

Being 3/5 of the things listed by the OP I get funny looks when admitting my communist sympathies and proclaiming that the western world is almost exclusively run by these people. Obviously there are bourgeoise and prolateriate in every nation, of every ethnicity, of every religion, of both sexes and every sexual orientation but as far as the western world goes I definitely see your point.

i get the same kinda shit. i've been called "race traitor" way more often than i care to remember.

[bcbm]

i get the same kinda shit. i've been called "race traitor" way more often than i care to remember.

that is a badge to wear with pride

[slum]

like leftsolidarity said, the particular makeup of capital is historically determined. the history of imperialism and colonialism since the beginning of capitalism is where you want to look for explanations.

ETA: i hear 'guns germs and steel' is a good introduction to this subject (blowing apart narratives of racial superiority in favour of materialism/geopolitics). i've not read it (to my shame) but i think it bears mentioning.

[homegrown terror]

that is a badge to wear with pride

i suppose it's better than "race loyalist" but i think i'd rather identify as "race-war conscientious objector" :D

[bcbm]

treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity

[Beeth]

Not in the least. Yes, as an ideology capitalism doesn't care about race/gender/attraction/religion but in the real world capitalism is to benefit the top few which are white straight males for the most part. I don't see how you think it could be accidental with the history of slavery, colonialism, denial of equal bourgois rights (both past and present), assassinations and all the sabotage against the movements of oppressed people, etc.

None of this was an accident. It was on purpose to keep the white/straight/male capitalist class in power.

All this is incidental rather than intentional. Capitalism, as a system, isn't a conscious entity that makes decisions based upon personal prejudices and preferences. Incidentally, the guys at the top are white, hetero male. Had history taken a different turn, the guys at the top could have been ...

[dēmistĕfī]

Not in the least. Yes, as an ideology capitalism doesn't care about race/gender/attraction/religion but in the real world capitalism is to benefit the top few which are white straight males for the most part. I don't see how you think it could be accidental with the history of slavery, colonialism, denial of equal bourgois rights (both past and present), assassinations and all the sabotage against the movements of oppressed people, etc.

None of this was an accident. It was on purpose to keep the white/straight/male capitalist class in power.
This is a willful misrepresentation of history. In any case, capitalism is not an ideology; it's a particular episode in the history of the forces and relations of social production, marked by, and defined by, the generalisation of both commodity production and alienated labour.

Economic activities which may be described as 'capitalist' (such as wage-labour and the production of goods primarily for exchange on the market) have existed alongside other modes of production since the prehistory of every culture, but it was only due to the historical economic necessity to revolutionise the means of production (via the ensuing class struggle) that the European bourgeoisie ascended to the state and the conditions of commodity production and alienated labour were generalised onto the whole of their societies. Primarily to offset the falling rate of profit and expand world markets, the bourgeoisie sought cheaper labour and raw materials in the colonial regions, and thus the conditions of commodity production and alienated labour became further generalised onto the whole world, under the hegemony of the European powers. The fact that the "white" bourgeoisie already have dominance over most markets is the reason why it is hard for African, Asian, Latin American, etc. capitalists to establish a strong foothold in those markets and be counted among the world's richest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i think he was referring to the fact that europe became the dominant economic power in history as an accident of events, basically that should certain occurances happened differently it could conceivably be a different regional group that rose to power. for instance, had the bubonic plague persisted longer than it did, europe might have been devastated past the point of recovery, allowing for asia to take the helm and dominate political and economic history; or had rome died out before the imperial stage, conceivably the middle east might have been the center of consolidated power for the mediterranean, and effected an arab-dominated globe.

It's probably due in part to being a backwater that Europe devleoped like it did and needed to expand. So yes, IMO, it's definately accidents of circumstance and particulars of historical development that led to certain regions developing like they did and eventually to Europe becoming the dominant region for capitalism.

I've been reading about ancient China recently and theories of how there was sort of a powerful merchant and beurocratic class that developed and ushered in a sort of renassance and massive expansion of the economy which might have opened the possibility of capitalism developing in China centuries earlier than in Europe. It's interesting to think about, and I'm trying to get a better sense of pre-capitalist history, but I don't know enough to say how valid this claim is from reading one book.


This is a willful misrepresentation of history. In any case, capitalism is not an ideology; it's a particular episode in the history of the forces and relations of social production, marked by, and defined by, the generalisation of both commodity production and alienated labour.

Economic activities which may be described as 'capitalist' (such as wage-labour and the production of goods primarily for exchange on the market) have existed alongside other modes of production since the prehistory of every culture, but it was only due to the historical economic necessity to revolutionise the means of production (via the ensuing class struggle) that the European bourgeoisie ascended to the state and the conditions of commodity production and alienated labour were generalised onto the whole of their societies. Primarily to offset the falling rate of profit and expand world markets, the bourgeoisie sought cheaper labour and raw materials in the colonial regions, and thus the conditions of commodity production and alienated labour became further generalised onto the whole world, under the hegemony of the European powers. The fact that the "white" bourgeoisie already have dominance over most markets is the reason why it is hard for African, Asian, Latin American, etc. capitalists to establish a strong foothold in those markets and be counted among the world's richest.

This is excellent. Though I don't think the other poster was "willfully" misrepresenting anything, just arguing a different view of history - yours is more accurate from my view.

[bcbm]

I've been reading about ancient China recently and theories of how there was sort of a powerful merchant and beurocratic class that developed and ushered in a sort of renassance and massive expansion of the economy which might have opened the possibility of capitalism developing in China centuries earlier than in Europe. It's interesting to think about, and I'm trying to get a better sense of pre-capitalist history, but I don't know enough to say how valid this claim is from reading one book.

havent some argued something similar about ancient rome as well?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is Capitalism really a system designed & built for wealthy white heterosexual christian males or is it more complex? Or maybe I got it right the first time?

Well this might be best evidence I found that supports my original point:

http://100percentmen.tumblr.com/

Well I think it is much more complex and although specific features of oppression were certaintly "designed" in general I think you can't say that capitalism was designed for anything - more like capitalism develops in certain ways due to the relationship between circumstances it's own sort of surpluss-seeking logic.

As far as the system being (in the US) dominated by white males, well that's just observable fact. This really just has to do with who originally had power and wealth and thereofore had more opportunities to advance this and control more wealth. Since early on, the US was dominated by the large land-owning entrepunureal lesser-children of powerful British families, wealthy traders from a number of countries, these groups tended to be the most influential and in the best position to use their wealth move to manufacturing or trading and become a lot of the wealthy people as capitalism developed. But even then, while there is (was) social stigma of some of the "lower-class" new bourgoise because of older aristocratic tradditions, the US ruling class was open even to people born of poor immigrants that achieved mobility (though this was very rare - even if it's also a myth that's over-sold to the 19th century public as well as today). So that Jewish or Irish people could become important capitalists even while being socially despised and repressed in the early 20th century or that Black people or Latinos can (though, again, rarely) become part of the ruling class today suggests to me that oppression is less about closing the door completely in ruling circles, and more about controlling the population in general.

With repression against women and sexual minorities, I think it becomes even more clear that the role of oppression is to control the "masses" not create excusivity in rulership. At the same time that influential capitalists historically (and today) tout the benifits of the nuclear (hetero and male-dominated) family, their families are just as messed up as the rest of ours - maybe even moreso because there's a lot more personal greed and power involved in ruling class families. People like Randolph Herst have always told workers to cherish families and this is the key to making it as a worker, and yet they would have affairs or serial wives or cut-off their children from inheritance or whatnot.

In general I think oppression of these kinds is not about maintaining an exclusive ruling clique (of specific people), but a way of ensuring social order in society: an order where people can continue to be exploited and profits made (for a ruling clique in general).

[homegrown terror]

havent some argued something similar about ancient rome as well?

given enough historical evidence to pore through, we could point out specific moments in history in which any major civilisation could have zigged rather than zagged and ended up as a global superpower. i would personally be VERY curious to see how those worlds would have turned out (shit, i've been watching too many Sliders reruns lately)